villainsfandomcom-20200225-history
User blog:BeholderofStuff/Villains I Don't Like But Other People Do
A while ago, Dreadnine did his own little list of villains he doesn't like but others do. So I've decided to compose my own in no particular order. Some might even mirror his. And keep in mind that everything I write is opinionated. Angelus-Yeah...sorry Jester. A few users might be shocked by this considering I labeled him my #1 favorite villain of all at one point. But after thinking of him more and more, I've liked him less and less. Now there are still good things to his character, and thanks to the good parts, he would be last on this list if this was in a particular order. The way his character parallels Angel is somewhat unique. And David Boreanaz does look like he's having fun in the role. I've seen him in interviews and as weird as it sounds, I think i see more of him in Angelus than Angel. Althought I think he can be a little over the top at times when Angelus gets angry. But overall, he's a decent watch and has some fun lines(his speech on passion is honestly my favorite villain quote). And yes, he did take Buffy down a much darker road than fans were used to. But the bad...good lord. First off, he was set up by other characters as being this ultimately vicous creature, and having this cunning personality with a nack for psychological torture. But he doesn't take any of his opponents seriously to the point that he gets defeated and they escape. For example, when Buffy is making the decision to kill him or not, he brags about how she can't do it, and practically lets her kick him the crotch, causing him to fall to the floor in pain like a little bitch. Yes, the most vicious creature The Master ever met just gave into a crotch kick. Facepalm. In flashbacks, he's constantly running from other vampire hunters and in Angel,when he escapes from his cell, he simply knocks out "Cordy" rather than kill her because she kicked his ass, and lies to Wes, Gunn, and Connor (who think he's still Angel) that he's gonna "save the world" just so he can leave the hotel and kill. What the...? You whimp, you're supposed to have the same mind and fighting skill as Angel! I strongly believe that if Angelus put all the fighting skills Angel has (which he should have btw, they have the same brain) into the good guys, they would be dead. No, i don't want them to die, but at least make him a more worthy opponent.I mean he runs away ALL THE TIME!!! When he attacks Buffy in "Killed By Death" he runs aways when her friends put a blanket over him and start beating him. Second of all, he doesn't even subject Buffy to that much psychological torture. The only two things he does is turn one of her classmates into a vampire so she'll have to kill her (who only showed up for that one episode and as far as I know didn't know Buffy that well, which makes it hard for me to care) and kills Jenny Calender. Now while killing Jenny IS a major plot point, that's the only big thing he does. After that, he's not even painted as a main antagonist of a couple episodes and is just sort of there to show up. And by the end of the season, out of nowhere, he descided to send the world to hell. Uh...why again? Yes I know he's a saidst, but what about all that gloating about how he's gonna break Buffy just like Drusilla? It seems out of nowhere and a bit of a lazy way to build up the conflict of the show as well make his character more "savage". Also, TV Tropes lies to you. Angelus did not turn Holtz' daughter into a vampire so he would have to kill her, Darla did.Yes he killed his wife and son, but the most heinous part of the act was not done by him, sadly. And when Angelus is brought back in Angel, Season 4, he goes from Hannbal Lector to being a complete man child!! He is the worst excuse for a cold blooded killer. He becomes a pawn to Jasmine, and, like I said before, doesn't try to kill when he has the chance. Funny, Angel said if he were Angelus, his friends wouldn't be alive. Yeah because he'd TALK THEM TO DEATH!!!!!!! I personally feel Dracula is more of what this guy should have been, a seductive, sophisticated, cold blooded killer who didn't let his ego or anger get the better of him. Hilly Holbrook-She's very much just a one-dimensional bitch with a racist hate and that's about it. No character, no reason, no nothing. The most I get out of her is her father spoiled her but that's about it. She's a perfect exmaple of a great antagonist, but a terrible villain. What i mean by that is while yes, she is effective in the sense she becomes a legitimate threat to the main characters, that's all she's good for. Character wise, she has pretty much nothing. I am aware that back in that time, there were most likely people like her, but on film, when you have an audience to sit through the unpleasantness, ya need to give a little more developement rather than just decide, ok let's get the racist bitch, she's this way cause it works for the book/film. No, really go into her character. Frollo was terrific in the sense that while he was a racist bastard, he had GREAT complextiexs in explaining why he did what he did, and by Hellfire, we know more about his character than we thought we did. Hilly is just a one-dimensional antagonist who's meant to work for the book/film and nothing more. Debbie Loomis-I wouldn't say she's extremely loved by others as I've read some people do find her reveal out of nowhere and her character underdeveloped, but she still has enough of a fan base in my eyes. So anyways, allot of my reasons are for the same reasons others have problems with her, that she is VERY underdeveloped. There is no forshadowing of her being a possible killer. She's only painted as a reporter who annoys Gail from time to time. And don't give me the "oh but it was unexpected" excuse. Twists have to have an effect on the audience in the sense that you're able to see hints of the reveal after you've already seen the twist and you re-watch/re-read it. Nothing suggests she could be the killer. There is no developement or hints at all. You can't re-watch the film and watch her scenes and be like: "oh, those were some hints I should have seen". The most you get is Randy made a reference of Mrs. Voorhees and how unpredictable it was. Get it, cause they're both mothers of serial killers out for revenge? Well you may now but HOW WILL YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?! It's completely out of nowhere and serves no purpose other than to say, "ok, here's a hint". Atop of that, I think the decison to make her the generic seeker of vengeance was pretty damn lazy, especially for the franchise. The Scream series is supposed to satarize film cliches, not use them. Let's get to Laurie Metcalf. I think a big reason people like her character is cause she's played by her. Now, I don't mind her as an actress. I think she's a fine actress. I haven't seen her enough films/shows to make a proper judgement, but so far I think she's ok. But as far as this film goes, there is not a singel thing about her performance that I find convincing of her being a cold-blooded killer. Her only possible way of trying to seem scary and intimidating is keeping her eyes really wide open without that much emotion. She's not even fun over the top like Stu, she's just kind of...there if that makes sense. Most lazy delivery ever. She's not scary, she's not fun, she's lame in the role imo. Honestly I find her partner, Mickey to be a much more effective villain. For one, he has more screen time and his character arc on his love for movies makes him more developed for the reveal, Timothy Olimphiant is much more sinister and fun to watch, AND evidence suggests he did more killings wheres Loomis most likely only killed Randy. Jill Roberts-My second least favorite Scream villain. Yes, she killed more people than her partner, and she did come closest to killing Sydney, but that sadly can't save her for me. Nor can my enormous crush on Emma Roberts and did I seriously just type that? Well, anyways, onto Jill herself. Not only do I not find it believable that this 5 foot nothing tall twig can kill so many people in the most brutal ways possible (two of them being grown men), the twist of her being the killer, much like Mrs. Loomis, lacks build up. Again, it just being unpredictable does not make it good in my eyes. It makes it LAZY. Oh, but her motive of wanting to gain fame due to jealousy of her cousin, Sydney, now that's interesting, oh wait...that's the LAST KILLER'S MOTIVE IN THE THIRD FILM!!!! Atop of that, Emma Roberts' performance is pretty bad. She's fine prior to being revealed as the killer, but once she's revealed, her behavior is more mirroring of a spoiled brat who didn't get elected as prom queen. Again, how am I supposed to believe she's a cold blooded killer? She's winy, she's bossy, she's just overall annoying to me! (Get up, get your ass over here...! UGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!) Not a fan, just...not a fan. Dolores Umbridge- In the like of Hilly Hobrook, a typical racist twit who, while being an effective antagonist, makes for a weak villain character wise. While the way her appearance, style, and mannerisms contradict her character is something to be admired, that's sadly the only real thing I find unique about her character. She's still overall just there to be a cardboard plot device. Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi)-Oooooo I will not win love for this one. No people, I'm sorry but Bela Lugoise is NOT the ultimate Dracula in my eyes. I don't care how many times he's parodied or made tribute to. The way he looks doesn't even match Dracula in the novel. I mean no disrespect to Bela Lugosi and may he rest in peace, as I don't really think the film itself as a whole has aged all that well, not just his performance. But let's get onto to his performance as Dracula. I don't think his acting is god awful or anything, but I just don't buy the fear/seductive qualities of Dracula. I feel like Lugosi puts WAY to much emphasis on his eyes being wide open (much like Laurie Metcalf as Mrs. Loomis) and all in all is too hammy and over the top for my taste. I mean Christopher Lee may not have the exact image of Dracula per say either, but he captures more of a subtlety fear and didn't feel the need to ham it up or anything like that to seem scary. And he was able to capture that fear with his eyes the right way imo. His stare is more natural and subtle if that makes sense. Lord Farquaad-I wouldn't say I hate this guy per say, but I really don't get the hype for him. Generally speaking, if you look at a favourite non disney animated villains list, he's either #1 or in the top 3 or 10-which is sad considering there are much more intimadating, complex, and awesome vilains in the non-disney media. Perhaps it was because of everyone's love for Shrek. Now I like Shrek. But what's really so memorable about Farquad? I mean seriously. Is it because he's short? Yeah...cause short people are funny. Wait...no they're not. I mean I get that whole humor of it is he's short yet had so much power, and people find it funny because of it's contradiction. But other than that, I just don't see anything memorable about him. I don't find him very funny, entertaining, or even all that threatening. I mean John Lithgow does a good job voicing him, but overall, I just don't see the appeal. 'The Horned King-' 'Oogie Boogie-' , and mannerisms T Category:Blog posts